Upheld: unfair claim handling - inappropriate use of non-OEM parts and failure to exercise discretion complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F complained about Admiral's handling of a windscreen claim following a failed repair in December 2024. When the windscreen cracked in June 2025, Admiral proposed replacing it with non-OEM glass, but Mr F's vehicle manufacturer explicitly stated this would invalidate his warranty and affect resale value. Admiral refused to fit OEM glass unless Mr F paid £1,195. Mr F eventually replaced the windscreen himself with OEM glass at a cost of £2,544.58 before selling the vehicle. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Admiral should have exercised its discretion to fit OEM glass given the manufacturer's explicit concerns about warranty invalidation and vehicle value, and ordered Admiral to refund the windscreen cost plus interest and pay £200 compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Admiral's policy term gave it flexibility to use non-OEM glass, the specific circumstances of this case made non-OEM glass unsuitable. The vehicle manufacturer's explicit statement that non-OEM glass would invalidate the warranty and affect resale value was decisive. Admiral's own policy allows it to fit OEM glass when non-OEM is unsuitable, and Mr F demonstrated unsuitability. It was unreasonable to force Mr F to either accept a windscreen that would invalidate his warranty or pay £1,195 to avoid this. The ombudsman rejected Admiral's argument about EU regulations, noting it was unfair to pass responsibility for arguing regulatory implications onto Mr F. The policy term regarding vehicle depreciation did not apply because the loss was caused by Admiral's proposed repair, not the original damage.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website